the residency requirement

1 Lifvendahl, 2/4/2012

The Residency Requirement: City of Milwaukee

Researched

By

Thomas A. Lifvendahl, Ed.D.

www.drtomlifvendahl.com

3173 North 50th

Street

Milwaukee, WI 53216

414/873-4170

For

Milwaukee Police Association

6310 West Bluemound Road

Milwaukee, WI 53213

414/778-0740

http://www.drtomlifvendahl.com/


Executive Summary

Since 1938, the City of Milwaukee has mandated residency for Police Officers. Throughout

this period to the present day, residency and its attendant issues have acted as an “open wound”

stimulating friction and ill will between the government of the City of Milwaukee and its public

servant employees.

A combination review of residency requirements in thirty- eight (38) similarly sized cities

around the United States illustrated that NO city other than Milwaukee required mandatory

permanent residency. Additionally no evidentiary findings were discovered to substantiate the

City’s assertion that lifting the residency requirement would have a causal effect related to

increased crime or diminishment of property value. An opinion survey produced both

quantitative and qualitative findings that reflect a wide range of responses as to the possible

effects lifting mandatory residency will have on the Membership of the Association.

Findings note that the range of responses mirror issues of time in service, time to retirement,

family status, ages of children, need for education, and other issues of individual personal or

familial preference. This document clearly records that the majority of police officers want to

rescind the mandatory residency requirement.

No one truly can predict the actual effects such a legislative action will have on housing

values, tax income or neighborhood stability. However, for the Membership, the concern they

voiced most constantly as a dominant single issue was the perceived dysfunction of the

Milwaukee Public Schools.

Removing the mandatory residency requirement is fraught with social uncertainty. The

Membership of the Milwaukee Police Association is conscious of this fact and sensitive to the

psychic uncertainty produced by its elimination to the City and its residents. Nevertheless, in the

end, they want it eliminated.


Table of Contents

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 2

The Residency Requirement: Foreword ................................................................................... 4

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 5

Arguments for and against residency .................................................................................... 5

Existing conditions of residency in the City of Milwaukee .................................................. 6

Residency Patterns for Teachers as an Analogue for Police ................................................. 7

Why do residency requirements continue to be enforced? ................................................... 8

Research Question ................................................................................................................ 8

Cities of Comparable Size .................................................................................................... 9

Expansion of the Vernon Cities .......................................................................................... 10

Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 11

Stage One – Recruitment Policies................................................................................... 11

Stage Two – Survey Design ............................................................................................ 11

Stage Three – Data Analysis ........................................................................................... 11

Representative Anonymous Comments .................................................................................. 15




A Final Thought ...................................................................................................................... 22

References ............................................................................................................................... 23

Appendices .............................................................................................................................. 24

Research Questions ............................................................................................................. 25

Boston Residency Requirement .......................................................................................... 26

Municipal Tax Rates-Net Levy (2010-2011) ...................................................................... 27


The Residency Requirement: Foreword

By: Michael Crivello, President, Milwaukee Police Association

It is important for the reviewer of the following research to understand why this project was

commissioned. The ABSOLUTE residency requirement imposed upon Milwaukee Police and

Fire is decades old, and archaic by the very premise. The membership of the Milwaukee Police

Association (MPA) has demanded of the Association a focused endeavor to positively effect

change. The membership of the Association desires the Liberty & Freedom to choose what is

best for their family(s). The Executive Board of the MPA responded to the plea of the

membership by seeking a negotiated benefit through the collective bargaining process. The City

(Milwaukee) rejected the offers of mutual benefit presented by the Association; in-fact the City

directed the Association to pursue legislation as the only alternative to bargaining. The City

stated they will never bargain residency, and challenged, “The only way to get it (residency) is

through legislation”. The MPA requested the assistance of the legislative body of the State

Capitol. Both Assembly Bill 65 and Senate Bill 30 were thus introduced.

The City appeared at the respective hearings; although they never denied the fact that the

issue (residency) was before the Assembly and Senate by their mandate, they did speak in

opposition. The City presented argument based in unsupported anecdotal rhetoric, while the

MPA presented a case supported by first-hand knowledge and research. The MPA pursued an

evidence-based argument founded in factual account. Conversely, the City offered compelling

unsupported scare tactic; when challenged to origin of fact, they (City) neither would nor could

provide source information. Therefore, the MPA presents the following credible research in valid

support of challenging the City of Milwaukee’s ABSOLUTE residency requirement.

I would like to draw the attention of the reader to the absence of any information supporting

the City’s claim of plummeting property values and crime spikes as related to a relaxed

residency requirement. To note: NO correlation (nationwide) has been substantiated between city

employee residency requirement change and an advent of decline relative to municipality quality

of life. Additionally, rather compelling, I would draw your attention to the undisputable fact that

no other city (case study) in the nation continues to exercise an ABSOLUTE residency

requirement upon their police officers.

In conclusion, it is reasonable and certainly responsible to support Assembly Bill 65 and

Senate Bill 30 as the facts bear out that change is sensible and warranted.


Introduction

In order to understand the significance of mandatory residency to police officers you need to

consider that for many officers this policy represents an “open wound”. Like all scratched open

wounds, residency evokes pain and brings to the surface hidden emotions not normally

communicated by individuals who pride themselves in dealing with stress. Law enforcement is a

stressful profession.

First of all, I am a lifetime Milwaukee resident, along with most of my

family. This is the fifth neighborhood that I have moved to in the city, due

to the declining living conditions in Milkshake. I have watched a once safe

city turn into an urban crime mecca. I once felt safe with my family in

most parts of the city. Now I can't even visit my parents’ home on the

northwest side without feeling that I have to carry a firearm to protect my

family. As [a] resident, we pay a huge amount of taxes for public schools

that are terrible. As a responsible parent, I have paid large amounts of

money to send my child to a parochial school. In addition, as police

officers we are constantly under the scrutiny of the public. It's like living

in a fishbowl, and we are easily accessible to a criminal element who

would harm us and our families. I have personally had two partners on the

job who left because of the residency requirement. Their wives didn't want

to raise their children in the City of Milwaukee. Rescinding the residency

requirement would attract a better qualified police applicant, and

wouldn't cause the city to degrade any more then it already [has].

Rescinding the residency requirement SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE FIRST

ITEM TO BE NEGOTIATED BY THE UNION. (Anonymous Comment)

This report chronicles the following: First, dominant historic arguments advocating residency

requirements; for and against. Second, the status of residency in the United States. Third, the

surveyed perceptions of first line officers. A summary and conclusions concludes the report.

Arguments for and against residency

For Residency:

1. Having officers live in the city supports emergency work force needs.

2. Living in the city increases officer’s sensitivity to city needs and demonstrates more

interest in his/her community.

3. Residency enhances the economic viability of the community by internalizing both

tax receipts and budget expenditures (the “public coffer argument”, [Schug]).

4. Hiring only city residents supports diminishment of resident unemployment.

5. Residency supports a healthy “middle class” who live in the City.

6. Union bargaining power in relationship to city administration shifts in favor of the

city because the worker would be striking against its own community (Shug).


Against Residency:

1. An individual’s right to live wherever one wants is infringed.

2. It is difficult to link job effectiveness and individual performance to residency.

3. Residency unduly restricts the potential hiring labor pool of qualified candidates.

4. Wages for city workers are artificially depressed by residency requirements because

of the non-competitive nature of internalized hiring.

5. Public employees are aware of market value and areas of the city that are conducive

of equitable living. They presently live there.

6. Flight from the city and residency are difficult to link.

Existing conditions of residency in the City of Milwaukee

Residency, as stated in Wisconsin State Statute 62.53 requires:

for public officials in 1st class cities. Any public official, as defined

in s. 62.51 (1) (b), may not serve more than 180 days after his or

her confirmation unless he or she resides within the boundaries of

the 1st class city by which he or she is employed. History: 1987 a.

289; 1999 a. 150 s. 300; Stats. 1999 s. 62.53.

Milwaukee is the sole 1st class city in the State of Wisconsin. Originally passed by charter

ordinance in 1938 (wisn.com) and a “mandatory subject for collective bargaining” (Political),

residency requirements in the United States historically can be traced back to the English feudal

system brought to American colonial governments. (Schug , p. 5). Originally, residency

reinforced patronage and created a “spoils system” through internalized hiring. This perceived

corrupt system became one of many drivers behind initiating civil service reforms of the early

20th

Century. Those initial challenges led to residency laws dropped from many jurisdictions.

Conversely, a renewed interest in residency came during the 1970’s spurred by litigation and

difficult economic conditions. There is a direct and recurring link between perceptions of

commitment to one’s community and depressed economic circumstances. It can be argued that

angst over the current “Great Recession” is hindering the ability of many decision-makers to

clearly determine the cost/benefit relationships of residency requirements for police in the City

of Milwaukee.

The Wisconsin State Legislature is considering changing statutes to lift the Milwaukee

residency requirement by allowing “Milwaukee police officers and firefighters to live anywhere

in the five-county area, not just in the city” (Stein). Other pending legislation addresses lifting

residency for “6000 Milwaukee Public Schools teachers” (wisn.com). These actions, when taken

in aggregate, have created a firestorm of controversy over both the affect and intent of the

legislation.


Residency Patterns for Teachers as an Analogue for Police


The illustration depicted above from the 2000 census notes that the largest concentrations of

educators are “on Milwaukee East Side, South Side and Bay View neighborhoods, along the

Wauwatosa border and near Greenfield and West Milwaukee. The next darkest are in the

northern part of the city near Ozaukee County with further concentrations also scattered about

Milwaukee’s South and West Side Census tracts” (Schug , p. 16).

Significantly, few teachers chose to live in the central city. Therefore, one can argue that the

residency requirement for teachers fails to draw individuals into inner-city neighborhoods (a

laudable political outcome justifying residency for employment). If the patterns of residency

depicted in this graphic mirror police residency patterns (which I believe they do) then the

arguments about teacher residency (for or against) mirror police.

Why do residency requirements continue to be enforced?

When one studies the economic behavior of city government with “public choice theory”

(premised on the concept that individuals seek to maximize personal benefits while minimizing

individual costs) one finds that public officials, as individuals, tend to maximize personal self-

interest over public interest. They do this by utilizing the power of special interest groups to

support maintenance of city policy.

Presently, public policy seems based on unchallenged public and emotional assessment.

Residency requirements enhance an elected official’s public image and resultant electability. In

essence, one can argue that city policy seems held hostage to the desires of untested special

interest opinions and unstable economic conditions.

This report is designed to chronicle Association membership range of views on residency.

The consequences of rescinding residency are not addressed in the scope of this report.

Research Question

To what extent will be the effects of cessation of mandatory residency in the City of Milwaukee?

The research findings that follow answer this question.


Cities of Comparable Size

The following chart lists cities of comparable size. These cities were requested as part of this

report by the MPA. These are “Vernon 18” Jurisdictions based on 2008 U.S. Census Data

Estimates (we need to update this information with 2010 Census Data).

Note: The Vernon 18 designate originated from a 2009 arbitration agreement between the

Milwaukee Police Supervisors’ Organization and the City of Milwaukee stipulating conditions of

salary parity for bargaining purposes (Case 546).

JURISDICTION

POPULATION

Indianapolis 798.382

Austin 757,688

Columbus 754,885

Fort Worth 703,073

Charlotte 687,456

Memphis 669,651

Baltimore 636,919

El Paso 613,190

Boston 609,023

Milwaukee 604,477

Denver 598,707

Seattle 598,541

Nashville 596,462

Washington DC 591,833

Las Vegas 558,383

Portland 557,706

Louisville 557,224

Oklahoma City 551,789

Tucson 541,811

Estimates are based on U.S. Census methodology for determining annual population of

incorporated places over 100,000 (see www.census.gov/popest/cities/SUB-EST2008.html).

http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/SUB-EST2008.html


This researcher’s initial findings led him to believe that the Vernon 18 list was insufficient as

to both size and scope. The researcher expanded the list to cover 19 more cities with populations

ranging from 945,942 to 147,433. These additional cities confirmed that residency was

unstandardized. Significantly, there is no national norm.

Expansion of the Vernon Cities

In order to insure proper coverage of residency requirements the initial Vernon data set was

expanded to cover the following jurisdictions:

JURISDICTION POPULATION

San Jose 945,942

Jacksonville 821,784

Detroit 713,777

Oklahoma City 579,999

Albuquerque 545,852

Long Beach 462,257

Kansas City 459,787

Atlanta 420,003

Colorado Springs 416,427

Cleveland 396,815

Minneapolis 382,578

Cincinnati 296,943

Buffalo 261,310

Fort Wayne 253,691

Birmingham 212,237

Boise 205,671

Des Moines 203,433

Rockford 152,871

Joliet 147,433


Methodology

In planning the project this researcher and the Association agreed, that its prime purpose was

to question the Membership as to their preferences based on the assumption that mandatory

residency was to be eliminated. What drove this process was a desire to see what the effects of

elimination would be by examining anticipated behavior of Members. It was not the scope of this

study to discern if the Members believed residency should or should not be eliminated. We are

concerned more with determining anticipated consequences and individual behavior initiated by

residency modification.

Stage One – Recruitment Policies In order to determine current policy in each city thirty eight (38) police websites were visited

and recruitment policies recorded. Those policies were then analyzed and displayed in the

spreadsheet that follows. The jurisdictions name, population (the determining factor for

inclusion) are highlighted and recruitment requirements noted. The one consistent variable of

difference was residency and those differences are in text information in each graphic table.

Stage Two – Survey Design It was agreed that the research consist of both choice questions (choose one issue over

another or list choices) and two qualitative open questions that would provide Members views on

the residency issue. The Association sent a general mailing to its membership and included a

printed survey (see Appendices “Survey Questions”) and a return envelope. The total response

provided 511 surveys returned to the Association.

Stage Three – Data Analysis In order to insure anonymity and overall security the Association President handed the

unopened envelopes directly to the researcher. This researcher had total control over all aspects

of data entry and analysis. Survey Monkey was utilized as the input and display software.

Quantitative data were tabulated and displayed. Qualitative data were inputted by this

researcher, sorted by comment content, and displayed in an appropriate area in this document.

This researcher sought to give clear voice to the Members without undue interpretation. This

document is as close to the existing consensus of the Association Membership as to the effect of

residency revision or elimination as possible.

Finally, information on tax rates (see Appendices “Municipal Tax Rates”) for an adjacent

community was included to inform the reader as to the extent to which believed economic

benefits of moving are actualized.


JUR

ISD

ICTI

ON

POPU

LATI

ON

AG

E

CIT

IZEN

NO

FEL

ON

Y/M

OR

AL

CH

AR

AC

TUR

E

GED

/HS/

CO

LLEG

E

DR

IVER

S LI

CEN

SE

MED

ICA

L

DR

UG

S

PH

YSIC

AL

HO

NO

RA

BLE

DIS

CH

AR

GE-

MIL

ITA

RY

RES

IDEN

CY

Indianapolis 798,382 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Austin 757,688 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

Columbus 754,885 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

Fort Worth 703,073 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Charlotte 687,456 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Memphis 669,651 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

Baltimore 636,919 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

El Paso 613,190 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

Boston 609,023 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Milwaukee 604,477 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Denver 598,707 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

Seattle 598,541 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

Nashville 596,462 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

Washington DC 591,833 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

Las Vegas 558,383 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

Portland 557,706 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

Louisville 557,224 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

Oklahoma City 551,789 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

Tucson 541,811 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

INITIAL FINDINGS ON RECRUITMENT REQUIREMENTS

Resident of Marion County or one of

seven adjoining counties.

Live within 30 minutes of report in

station, achieved within 6 months of

employment.Reside in State of NC/SC and live within

45 mile radius of Police Headquarters.

Must reside within Boston upon hire.

Free to move after 10 years service

Must reside within Milwaukee

Data

Summary

Only two cities reviewed

for this report require Police

Officers to reside in their

city of employment at the

time they are hired: Boston

and Milwaukee.

Boston allows movement

after 10 years of service.

Finally, eight have distance

or county restrictions. The

rest have no residency

restrictions.


JURISDICTION

POPULATION

AGE

CITIZEN

NO FELONY/MORAL CHARACTURE

GED/HS/COLLEGE

DRIVERS LICENSE

MEDICAL

DRUGS

PHYSICAL

HONORABLE DISCHARGE-MILITARY

RESIDENCY

San

Jo

se94

5,94

2Y

YY

YY

YY

YY

N

Jack

son

vill

e82

1,78

4Y

YY

YN

MY

YY

YN

De

tro

it71

3,77

7Y

YY

YY

YY

YY

N

Okl

aho

ma

Cit

y57

9,99

9Y

YY

YY

YY

YY

N

Alb

uq

ue

rqu

e54

5,85

2Y

YY

YY

YY

YY

N

Lon

g B

eac

h46

2,25

7Y

YY

YY

YY

YY

N

Kan

sas

Cit

y45

9,78

7Y

YY

YY

YY

YY

Y

Atl

anta

420,

003

YY

YY

YY

YY

YN

Co

lora

do

Sp

rin

gs41

6,42

7Y

YY

YY

YY

YY

N

Cle

vela

nd

396,

815

YY

YY

YY

YY

YN

Min

ne

apo

lis

382,

578

YY

YY

YY

YY

YN

Cin

cin

nat

i29

6,94

3Y

YY

YY

YY

YY

Y

Bu

ffal

o26

1,31

0Y

YY

YY

YY

YY

Y

Fort

Way

ne

253,

691

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

Bir

min

gham

212,

237

YY

YY

YY

YY

YN

Bo

ise

205,

671

YY

YY

YY

YY

YN

De

s M

oin

es

203,

433

YY

YY

YY

YY

YN

Ro

ckfo

rd15

2,87

1Y

YY

YY

YY

YY

Y

Joli

et

147,

433

YY

YY

YY

YY

YN

Emp

loye

es

mu

st li

ve in

Win

ne

bag

o C

ou

nty

or

wit

hin

fif

tee

n (

15)

mil

es

of

the

Pu

bli

c Sa

fety

Bu

ild

ing

wit

hin

six

(6)

mo

nth

s o

f th

e c

on

clu

sio

n o

f

the

ir p

rob

atio

nar

y p

eri

od

.

Me

et

resi

de

ncy

re

qu

ire

me

nts

co

nsi

ste

nt

wit

h In

dia

na

stat

ute

Live

wit

hin

cit

y w

ith

in t

we

lve

mo

nth

s o

f e

mp

loym

en

t

EXP

AN

SIO

N O

F D

ATA

AN

ALY

SIS

TO N

EW C

ITIE

S

Mu

st b

e a

Ham

ilto

n C

ou

nty

Re

sid

en

t b

y d

ate

of

em

plo

yme

nt

and

mai

nta

in r

esi

de

ncy

fo

r le

ngt

h o

f e

mp

loym

en

t

Re

sid

ed

co

nti

nu

ou

sly

in E

rie

, Nia

gara

, Ge

ne

see

, Wyo

min

g, C

atta

rau

gus

or

Ch

auta

uq

ua

Co

un

ty f

or

at le

ast

90 d

ays

pri

or

to M

arch

16,

210

0


With the drop of residency as a requirement for employment, I would move out of the City of Milwaukee.

Answer Options Response Percent

Response Count

Instantly 10.5% 53

Within Six Months 7.5% 38

Within One Year 24.6% 124

I would Not Move 22.2% 112

I am not sure what I would do 35.6% 180

answered question 505

skipped question 6


Representative Anonymous Comments

There is a sense of ambivalence over residency in the membership as to their moving if

residency is dropped.

There are a lot of officers that come on the job because they want to protect and

serve and help better the lives of Milwaukeeans. Many of those officers didn't

grow up in Milwaukee and have family somewhere else. These officers still are

committed to Milwaukee, but also want to share their lives with their hometown

family.

I own a house that, due to the downturn in the housing market, [it] has little

equity left in it. I'm not sure I could find a buyer for my house. Given those two

conditions, I don't know that I could move. Schools are my number one concern,

so it I could afford to move, I would.

Lifting residency is on no benefit to me. I was born and raised in the city, and I

currently live on the same street I grew up on. I enjoy Milwaukee. Property taxes

are high, but if residency is lifted I guarantee the taxes in the municipalities

surround us will increase in anticipation of the mass exodus of city employees.

Lifting residency may be a perk for some, but not for me. Give me a pay raise

instead.

I believe this requirement is outdated, since the improvement on roads and

interstate [were] constructed. I don't see a difference in a commute from

Waukesha to any District than someone that resides on the northwest part of

Milwaukee that commutes to District 6 or 2 for work. Due to the real estate

market, there won't be an exodus of officers and the these officers with less than

10 years to retirement may not leave to avoid another mortgage when they retire

or attempt to sell another house. If I sell my house someone will take over my

Milwaukee property tax and there won't be massive [numbers] of abandoned

houses, as the Mayor projects.


Which of the following conditions determine my decision to move? (Check all that are appropriate)


Response Count

The School System 71.8% 341

Safety Concerns 58.9% 280

Life Style (Urban vs. Suburban) 54.7% 260

Family Requirements (Example: Health of Relatives, etc)

18.9% 90

Real Estate Conditions 49.1% 233

Municipal Taxes and/or Fees 66.1% 314

Other (please specify) 81


skipped question 36



The dominant theme that directly affects police families is the negative perception of the

Milwaukee Public School System. Members with school age children believe that the only

option they have for their kids is private schooling and attendant educational expenses that would

not be needed if their children could attend safe suburban systems.

The next dominant issue is safety (personal and family). Officers object to the fact that they

have to shop and interact with a public in Milwaukee that they recently arrested. Finally, there

are economic conditions that act as catalysts for feelings of entrapment. A corollary to this

perception is the belief that Milwaukee taxes are exorbitant (See Exhibit 2 for a table of taxes

produced by the State of Wisconsin).

Private school[s] are almost mandatory for our children since MPS is very poorly

rated and I cannot send my children to the same schools in which have kids that I

kicked in their door, shot their dog and arrested their Dad(s). Because of this it is

very costly and unfair to officers. The local government employees hold down the

base of the middle class in this city and because of this we are over burdened with

rising health costs, inflation and the need to live somewhere else.

I/we only do about 10% of our shopping/entertainment/eating in the city of

Milwaukee. Everything else is in other cities. When doing things in the city I feel

like I have to have my guard up and like I am at work.

I believe the level of stress of officers will decrease if we, and our families had a

choice where to live. Less incidents of misconduct, less alcohol consumption, less

worries. Greatest moments becoming an MPD officer and sad one knowing my

family loses any choice where to live.

I have kids enrolled out of MPS so that makes the decision based on economy and

whether I can sell house. How about the ability to move after 20 years on the job

(preparing for retirement)?

We as officers need to be able to go home and not worry that someone might have

broken in you residence. Yes, it happens everywhere but the chance of it

happening in Milwaukee is greater. A suburban home is much more relaxing as

well. You need to get away and recharges one you.

The answers to these questions will vary with an officer’s time on the job. For me

with 20 years on I will stay until retirement and hope to sell to another city

employee. So at this time I am opposed to lifting the residency requirement. If

however I had between 1-10 years on the job, my outlook on this would be

completely different. At this time, our goal is to move to the middle part of the

country for some lake living for our retirement years.


To what extent does the current economy determine your willingness to move?


Response Count

Directly determines my decision 24.0% 120

Somewhat limits my decision 32.8% 164

Has no effect on my decision 43.4% 217


skipped question 11



Respondents emphasized a feeling of entrapment. The economy is stagnant. Housing and real

estate markets are inelastic. Sales seem nonexistent and the membership seems to believe that it

will take years for elasticity to return to the market.

The angst over one’s ability to sell one’s home is significant. Couple these feelings with the

dominant social issues confronting the City of Milwaukee and you have dissatisfaction.

Please buy my house so I can move out of this place. If I can't sell, I can't move.

Residency means nothing to me if I can't sell. I'm stuck. Just like all the others.

The poor economy along with high taxes will certainly limit the sale of my

house which will limit my ability to move out.

I am going to retire somewhat soon so I don't want residency to be lifted so I can

sell my house. My kids are enrolled in a suburban school already. Even if

residency was lifted I wouldn't sell my house to move 5 miles. I've been stuck for

18 years, what's another 7.

I don't think it's fair to take in cases to the DA's office and have Milwaukee

County not process them or see repeat felons get probation time after time, for

crimes like burglary/robbery and deal with the stress and frustration of it. Then

also have to deal with the fact that if it happens to my house I will have to face the

same system. A place where it would be more difficult for a subject I arrest to find

transportation to my residence. Even though a lot of officers leave it will be very

difficult for me not to leave because we need somebody to sell our house to.


If the residency requirement were altered to stipulate that you would have to live within a specific distance from your duty station, how would you view that changed condition of employment?


Response Count

Highly Favorably 25.5% 127

Favorably 28.7% 143

Unfavorably 25.9% 129

No Opinion 20.6% 103


skipped question 12



Many communities in the United States who have residency restrictions design those

restrictions around a specific distance from a static “duty station”. Most require police officers to

live with a specific county, number of counties or distance from the city that employs them.

The overwhelming majority of members’ surveys noted that for a city the size of Milwaukee

requiring one to live a specific distance was illogical. The MPD transfers officers on an as

needed basis and requiring one to buy a home relative to the District she/he serves in is absurd.

How does that related from distance from station (D4 or D6) far ends - I see

distance from city but how can you say from duty station. If I work at D4, but live

far end of D6 am I out of range?

You can't stipulate distance from specific work locations because you may be in

compliance with the rule at one point, then get an unwanted transfer and be in

violation of the rule. It needs to be setup in a way that allows you to live with a

certain distance of the City itself because that never changes. Or set it up saying

you have to live a certain distance from a specific point (City Hall). Countywide

is another option.

Residency is nothing more than keeping taxes in the city. If a response time is the

factor, I could respond to Districts 3, 5 or 7 faster from Oak Creek than I could

from the NW part of the City.

I don't think it’s a good idea to have to live within a certain/specific distance from

you duty station. What happens if you get transferred.

A geographic restriction to live a certain distance away is a favorable step. But I

personally feel that now employer, municipal or otherwise, should have the power

to limit choice of residency. It becomes a matter of denying me my freedom to

choose where and how I raise and provide a better living for my family. After all

we protect everyone else s freedom to do and go where they want.

It should be a specific distance from the city. What if you get moved districts. I don't

think the MPA should waste its time on this. Work on increasing pay and decreasing

cost of benefits than we can afford private school. Work on allowing more reciprocity

to other school districts for staying in the city. We like the city - we hate the school

system. If cops don't want to live in the city - go work for a suburban department.


Summary

In answering the following research question:

To what extent will be the effects of cessation of mandatory residency in the City of Milwaukee?

One must conclude that the surveyed membership generally believes that residency no longer

serves a viable function but the effects of eliminating residency on the willingness of the

Membership to stay or leave the City are mixed. The decision to move away is dependent on a

mix of constantly changing variables, economic conditions, and personal needs that are very hard

to predict.

This comment articulates many members’ positions well:

This isn't horse and buggy time. Everyone has a car. For some people, it doesn't

matter if they live across the street from a district station, it will take them an

hour to get to work in an emergency call-up situation. Distance should not be a

stipulation. Eliminating residency would bring in better candidates for police

officers, improve morale in the department, and better the force through attrition.

I'd rather see the union contribute money to lobbyist and this passed as a state

law, rather than allow it to be used as a bargaining chip.

A Final Thought

This researcher (a homeowner and resident of Sherman Park) is struck by the irony of being

forced to react to the obvious. Police departments employ human beings who react to conditions

affecting their personal lives as normal humans generally do. However, more importantly, they

deal with the City’s problems on a continuous basis in ways the average citizen cannot fully

understand. Hyper-vigilant to the city’s difficulties, they become extremely sensitive to their own

familial needs.

Significantly, when confronted by a perceived inability to provide their families with a

personal high level of “comfort and convenience” and a safe, “rich social life”…the same one

they work to provide the population of their city, they rebel. Thus, the “open wound” alluded to

at the beginning of the report. More importantly, this report chronicles an acute awareness of

individual members that, regardless of the outcome of the fight over residency: the police officer

is still a Milwaukeean with a stake in the well-being of our City.

Finally, the individual officer reflects the desire of the average Milwaukeean to “fix the

school system” (Anonymous Comment). Redirecting our energy back onto this central, systemic,

and controversially complex issue would do much to reduce the friction that hinders people of

good will to continue living together and exasperates the endemic problem mandatory residency

presents.


References

Agreement: City of Boston and Boston Municipal Police Superior Officers Association, IBPO

Local 539. Beginning July 1, 2007 Expires June 30, 2010.

http://www.cityofboston.gov/images_documents/mpsoa%202007%20-

%202010%20cba%20%28including%20wage%20delay%29_tcm3-12906.pdf

Case 546. (2009). Petition of Milwaukee police supervisors’ organization. See:

http://werc.wi.gov/interest_awards/mia32859.pdf

Hirsch, W.Z., Rufolo, A. M. (1983). Economic effects of residency laws on municipal police.

Discussion Paper #279.

Residency Requirement, State Stature 62.53.

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/62.pdf

Schug, M.C., Niederhohn, M.S. (June, 2006). The Milwaukee teacher residency requirement:

Why it’s bad for schools, and why it won’t go away. Thiensville, WI: Wisconsin Policy

Research Institute, Inc. (vol. 19), num. 5.

Stein, J. (2011). Assembly committee advances Milwaukee residency bill. Milwaukee Journal

Sentinel. http://jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/120791369.html

The Political Environment . (3/22/2011). City of Milwaukee fact sheet on residency.

http://thepoliticalenvironment.blogspot.com/2011/03/city-of-milwaukee-fact-sheet-

on.html

WISN.COM. (2012). Bill would end Milwaukee residency requirements ..Hearst Television

Inc. http://www.wisn.com/news/27285168/detail.html

http://www.cityofboston.gov/images_documents/mpsoa%202007%20-%202010%20cba%20%28including%20wage%20delay%29_tcm3-12906.pdf

http://www.cityofboston.gov/images_documents/mpsoa%202007%20-%202010%20cba%20%28including%20wage%20delay%29_tcm3-12906.pdf

http://werc.wi.gov/interest_awards/mia32859.pdf

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/62.pdf

http://jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/120791369.html

http://thepoliticalenvironment.blogspot.com/2011/03/city-of-milwaukee-fact-sheet-on.html

http://thepoliticalenvironment.blogspot.com/2011/03/city-of-milwaukee-fact-sheet-on.html

http://www.wisn.com/news/27285168/detail.html


Appendices


Research Questions

Please answer the following questions. This survey records your thoughts if given the

opportunity to live wherever you wish. Your responses are anonymous. All questions suppose

alteration of the residency requirement stipulating that Police Officers must reside in the City of

Milwaukee.

1. With the drop of residency as a requirement for employment, I would move out of the

City of Milwaukee.

a. Instantly

b. Within Six Months

c. Within One Year

d. I would Not Move

e. I am not sure what I would do

2. Which of the following conditions determine my decision to move? (Check all that

are appropriate)

a. The School System

b. Safety Concerns

c. Life Style (Urban vs. Suburban)

d. Family Requirements (Example: Health of Relatives, etc.)

e. Real Estate Conditions

f. Other

3. To what extent does the current economy determine your willingness to move?

a. Directly determines my decision

b. Somewhat limits my decision

c. Has no effect on my decision

4. If the residency requirement were altered to stipulate that you would have to live

within a specific distance from your duty station, how would you view that changed

condition of employment?

a. Highly Favorably

b. Favorably

c. Unfavorably

d. No Opinion

5. Please add any comments about the MPD Residency Requirement that you would

think useful to your Association Leadership.


Boston Residency Requirement

Article II.

Residency

Effective upon ratification and approval, members of the

bargaining unit must be residents of the City of Boston in

accordance with the City of Boston’s Residency Ordinance (Ord.

1976, c. 9 as amended), except that after ten (10) consecutive

years of active service from date of hire with the City of

Boston, bargaining unit members will be exempted from the

Residency Ordinance.

Agreement: City of Boston and Boston Municipal Police Superior Officers Association, IBPO


Municipal Tax Rates-Net Levy (2010-2011)

This is a comparative table designed to aid in judging taxes. The communities chosen were

adjacent to Milwaukee and represent areas to which Association families might migrate to with

the end of mandatory residency.

Type Name Net

Rate

Net

Rank

Per

Capita

Rank

City Milwaukee 25.25 65 1284 290

City Brookfield 18.02 501 2798 37

City Cedarburg 19.00 449 1940 90

City Mequon 16.01 559 2840 34

City Oak Creek 21.61 270 2064 72

City Pewaukee 14.89 580 3177 27

City Port Washington 17.20 524 1361 255

City Wauwatosa 22.16 223 2643 42

City West Allis 25.91 44 1758 116

Village Brown Deer 26.19 38 2408 50

Village Cedar Grove 21.48 281 1411 238

Village Elm Grove 18.50 467 3202 25

Village Fox Point 24.17 106 3809 20

Village Germantown 18.41 472 2195 63

Village Greendale 25.13 68 2358 53

Village Oconomowoc Lake 14.68 584 9432 4

Village West Milwaukee 29.18 7 2506 48

Village White Fish Bay 22.45 202 3235 24

Town Brookfield 15.12 1015 2431 171

Town Delafield 13.30 1152 2442 168

Town Franklin 18.91 318 1505 630

Town Glendale 24.17 9 1386 777

Town Oconomowoc 13.98 1121 2477 160

The table was constructed from State of Wisconsin Tax Levy information.

the residency requirement

Documents